Which would fail the moment the business opens their records and show that yes, in fact, they are overbooked.

Not any more than "we did not hire him because he's black, we did not hire him because he failed the exam," has worked to forestall
anti-discrimination lawsuits. The actual truth has not stopped them before, why should it now?

Why is it that the concept of common human decency flies out the window when it supports an agenda?

Agreed. And "common decency" would include simply going elsewhere rather than starting a lawsuit. Why does "common decency" only get to be one
way?

To go back to a previous point you brought up. So long as the African-American bakery doesn't have to scribble "kill n###ers" or something on the cake
for the KKK event, yes. They are legally obligated to bake that cake for them.

No they are not. One is not obligated to service a political event--which goes back to my premise that discrimination is certainly allowed in the US
as long as it's the right kind of discrimination.

It is entirely about serving gays, he has nothing to do with the wedding.

He is just making a cake for them.

Which has nothing to do with decorating.

Again the facts matter.

So is there proof that he never served any other gays? Or is it just the ones who came asking him to bake a wedding cake for their gay wedding?

If the former, maybe you're right. He has a problem with gays. If the latter, maybe he has a problem baking a cake for a ceremony he considers
sacrilege and doesn't want to participate in.

I think this is the problem, people are not seeing the distinction between serving a gay client, and providing materials to a ceremony one doesn't
support.

There is a distinction.

One is discrimination, one is a constitutionally protected act of religious belief.

If a baker, doesn't want to provide materials to a function or ceremony they feel violates their faith they shouldn't be forced to. Nor should they
have their livelihood destroyed over it. The couple should grow up and goto a different baker. If a baker, is refusing service to every gay person who
walks thru the door, they should be prosecuted under the appropriate laws. That is open discrimination.

Neither side will come to a resolve on this though. As one side pushes harder, the other side will push back with equal force ; And in the end
everyone looks silly.

The point is that whenever we see another protected class added to the "official list," we see the lawsuit industry expand.

Fair point. And I think that fact stems from two basic reasons:

1. Individuals take advantage of every law that can possibly be abused.

2. There was a good reason to make that class protected, as there is active discrimination against its members.

Okay, I can see them as reasonable points. I guess I would humbly suggest that currently the situation in the US is more the former than the latter.
Law of unintended consequences. We see it all of the time--firefighter's test scores to different sets of scores to get into university to awful
employees who can never be fired and recently, just down the road, the local mom & pop who got sued by one of those lawsuit seeking attorneys because
their bathroom in their tiny shop did not meet all of the requirements for accessibility. They could neither afford to remodel nor pay the attorney
so they folded. How did that help anyone, much less "the public?"

“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

The presence of single quotes indicates that Christ is quoting the Creator, quoting God (or YHVH if you prefer). The person who said according to
Christ is God, and what was said is "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh. That is a marriage as the topic being discussed is divorce. Jesus is first defining marriage and what it is. He goes on to explain why you
can't divorce. In this case it is because God joins man to woman as one flesh and what God joins may not be put asunder.

Yes, that means divorce is a big problem, too. Unless one of the partners commits adultery, divorce should not be permitted.

Sadly for christians, christianity did not invent marriage, as such they can only define religious marriage by their own faith. Which means they have
no religious reason not to make a cake for anyone not having a christian wedding.

Alas christianity does not own the term marriage, did not invent it, and has no right to complain about anyone not getting married within the confines
of their religion.

A secular marriage has literally no bearing on their religious beliefs what so ever.

originally posted by: 9thWatcher
Revelation 2:10
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution
for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

It's so nice that Christians have a catch-all so they don't have to take responsibility for their awfulness. "We don't have to change our ways! See!
It's predicted in our book that we will be persecuted for our beliefs!"

It's interesting to me how NOBODY hammering Christians on this will do the same to Muslims in this country. Why is that? Why aren't gay people
targeting their businesses? Why isn't the media? There is a clear agenda afoot and it has NOTHING to do with equality.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.